Does managed care mean more hassle for physicians?

Using the results of a 1995 nationally representative survey of physicians, this paper examines the relationship between exposure to managed care and resources expended by physicians on administrative and insurance matters. Our measures of managed care exposure are the degree to which a physician experiences a variety of managed care techniques (i.e., utilization review, capitation payment, restricted panels, gatekeepers, discounted fees, compensation links to utilization measures, profiling, protocols, and salary payment). Physicians report expending, on average, three hours per week on insurance-related matters and 4.8 hours per week on administration. Although managed care techniques affect administrative and insurance-related burdens, the direction of that effect varies according to the form that managed care exposure takes. With the exception of being salaried, none of our variables has an economically significant effect on physicians' administrative/insurance burdens, even at the outer-most edge of the 95% confidence interval. Overall, our findings contradict the widely held notion that managed care dramatically raises the administrative and insurance burden of physicians.

More or less?: Methods to compare VA and non-VA health care costs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine past comparisons of the costs of the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and of non-VA providers to determine lessons and data requirements for future cost comparisons, particularly those assessing VA efficiency and to determine whether VA should purchase care from non-VA providers. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: Over the past two decades, researchers have tried to establish how VA costs compare to those of non-VA health care delivery systems. Existing studies of overall acute care costs address one of two distinct questions: How do VA costs compare to costs in private sector hospitals? and Would it cost more to have VA patients treated in nonfederal hospitals? For both questions, the major factors underlying differences in health care costs are variations in outputs, input prices, and levels of efficiency. Health care cost comparisons across systems must also wrestle with accounting differences. CONCLUSIONS: That review finds no convincing evidence that VA has been significantly more or less efficient than nonfederal hospitals in delivering care. However, VA costs do appear to have been significantly lower than fee-for-service charges that the federal government might have to pay if veterans were treated in private sector hospitals for the same diagnoses. Future comparisons of costs in the era of managed care will require better diagnostic and population data to control for observable and unobservable case-mix differences. They should also include measures of the quality of outcomes. Finally, consistent accounting practices, particularly in the treatment of capital costs, are needed.

Who is the marginal patient? Understanding instrumental variables estimates of treatment effects.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the issues of generalizability arising from the use of instrumental variable (IV) methods to estimate treatment effects in nonexperimental medical outcome studies. DATA SOURCE: We generate Monte Carlo data designed to resemble typical data sets where detailed health status information is unavailable and the treatment assignment process is unobserved. The model used to generate our data makes the realistic assumption that unobservable health status characteristics of patients influence the treatment assignment process and the effectiveness of treatment. STUDY DESIGN: We use Monte Carlo data to illustrate the circumstances where IV estimates generalize to an unobservable patient subpopulation and those where IV estimates generalize to the entire patient population represented by the sample used in the analysis. We also simulate the effect of two policy changes that affect practice patterns. Further, we show that IV estimates are useful for predicting the effect of these changes on treatment effectiveness when the subpopulation to which the IV estimate refers is the same or very similar to the population whose treatment status is affected by the policy change. CONCLUSIONS: Health services researchers cannot take for granted that IV estimates generalize to the same population represented by the sample used for analysis. Instead, researchers must rely on their knowledge of clinical practice and theory regarding the treatment assignment process in interpreting their results and in predicting the effect of changes in practice patterns.

What do managed care plans do to affect care? Results from a survey of physicians.

Little is known about physicians' exposure to managed care techniques that affect clinical practice. In 1995, we conducted a survey of 2,003 U.S. physicians asking them about their share of patients subject to a variety of managed care techniques. Nationally, 24% of physicians received some form of capitation payment for their patients. The two most widely used techniques were utilization review (UR), applied to an average of 59% of patients, and discounted fees, applied to an average of 38% of patients. Although UR was common, ultimate denial rates of coverage were very low: at most 3% for the types of care studied. Use of managed care techniques varied more within states than between states. Conventional measures of HMO market penetration revealed little about how managed care affects physicians.

The new medical marketplace: physicians' views.

The transformation of the medical marketplace has major implications for the physician workforce. Findings are reported here from national surveys of physicians, hospitals, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), preferred provider organizations (PPOs), and medical group practices conducted in 1995 to measure the impact of those changes. Physicians in higher HMO penetration states were more likely to report serious problems with several aspects of medical practice and patient care and were more likely to perceived oversupply in their specialty areas and changes in their practice arrangements. Some divergence is noted in views of supply between physicians and those that employ them. The majority of physicians would still recommend medicine and their specialty as a career.